1 / 27

Project Overview

913.001 Layout Techniques for Cost-Driven Control of Lithography-Induced Variability Dennis Sylvester / Andrew B. Kahng U. Michigan EECS Dept. / UC San Diego ECE Dept. Project Overview.

mick
Download Presentation

Project Overview

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. 913.001 Layout Techniques for Cost-Driven Control of Lithography-Induced VariabilityDennis Sylvester / Andrew B. KahngU. Michigan EECS Dept. / UC San Diego ECE Dept.

  2. Project Overview Objective: Develop cost models, design rules, layout methods, and tools to: (1) minimize costs associated with resolution enhancement techniques (RETs), and (2) limit lithography-induced variability • Faculty • Dennis Sylvester, University of Michigan EECS Dept. • Andrew B. Kahng, University of California, San Diego ECE Dept. • Students • Jie Yang, PhD expected 2006 • Puneet Gupta, PhD expected 2006 • Mentors • Luigi Capodieci, AMD • Lars Liebmann, IBM • Karl Perrey, Intel • (Warren Grobman, Motorola)

  3. RETs for Subwavelength Lithography • WYSIWYG (layout = mask = wafer) failed starting with 350nm generation • Optical lithography: feature size limited by diffraction • Available knobs • aperture: OPC • phase: PSM •  RETs

  4. Optical Proximity Correction (OPC)

  5. conventional mask phase shifting mask glass Chrome Phase shifter 0 E at mask 0 0 E at wafer 0 0 I at wafer 0 Phase Shifting Mask (PSM)

  6. Mask Component of Manufacturing NRE Half of all mask sets used for < 570 wafers (< 100K parts) OPC, PSM, Fill  increased feature complexity Vector scan: Write cost proportional to feature complexity Difficult to inspect, verify masks! M. Rieger, Avant! – ISMT Mask-EDA Workshop July 2001

  7. Context-Dependent Fracturing Same pattern, different fracture P. Buck, Dupont Photomasks – ISMT Mask-EDA Workshop July 2001

  8. ITRS Maximum Single Layer File Size MEBES Data Volume (GB) Year P. Buck, Dupont Photomasks – ISMT Mask-EDA Workshop July 2001

  9. ALTA-3500 Mask Write Time Write Time (Reformat + Print) (Hrs) ABF Data Volume (MB) P. Buck, Dupont Photomasks – ISMT Mask-EDA Workshop July 2001

  10. RET Issues • PSM and lithography equipment choices (e.g., OAI) constrain layout, explode mask costs • Forbidden configurations (wrong-way critical-width doglegs, or diagonal features) • Cost-reducing variants (IDEAL, GRATEFUL) more constraining • Process window and yield enhancement: ditto • Forbidden width-spacing combinations (defocus window sensitivities) • Complex “local DRCs” • OPC subresolution assist features: ditto • Notch rules, critical-feature rules on local metal • Other • Dummy fill changes RCX results, creates inter-layer dependencies, increases data volume • halation rules (width- and length-dependent spacing)

  11. Example: Off-Axis Illumination • Different variants of off-axis illumination act to: • Amplify dense lines while attentuating larger pitches • Print only axis-parallel lines, not 45º lines F. Schellenberg, Mentor

  12. RET-Related Needs in 2001 ITRS • Function- and cost-aware OPC, PSM, dummy fill • Real goal = predictable circuit performance and function • Tools must understand functional intent • Make only corrections that gain $$$, reduce performance variation • Make only corrections that can be manufactured and verified • Fail only mask errors that affect function • Understand (data volume, verification) costs of breaking hierarchy • Fix broken flows • Making same OPC corrections 3x (library, router, PV tool) • Layout signoff w/o comprehending later RET insertion (e.g., fill)

  13. Key Question Which should be developed: (A) circuit design techniques that can deal with variability, or (B) process techniques that reduce variability? • At < 65nm, variation-tolerant circuit techniques may be a more cost-effective way to combat rising process uncertainties • Should seek better bang for the buck in applying RETs • Function-, cost-driven corrections • Synergies among various correction techniques (e.g., fill helps OPC)

  14. Quantifying Impact of RETs • Performance fluctuations due to dummy fill • Varying filling constraints, physical CMP models, tiling rules • Gate delay impact unclear • Grounded fill  inductive impact? • MOSFET I-V characteristics (including Ioff) with and without OPC/PSM • Varying proximity, layout configuration, gate dimensions • Layout density and performance • PSM-compliant libraries trade density for “free composability” • Bent gates no longer available • Intermediate-pitch wiring may underperform due to variability increase stemming from lack of subresolution assist features

  15. Investigating the Variability/Cost Relationship Initial driving question: How does the maximum value design compare to the maximum performance design? • Maximum value is driven by parametric distributions as well as value distributions (e.g., bin sorting) • What are the design implications for a value maximized design? • E.g., rely more heavily on spatial correlations or strive for more random behavior (averaging effects) ??? • To measure $/wafer, we need (1) detailed models of process variability, and (2) models of how chip parameters (frequency, testability, etc.) affect value

  16. Investigating the Variability/Cost Relationship (1) • (A) Build a taxonomy of variability sources • Intrinsic vs. dynamic (Vdd,temp) • Random vs. systematic • Intra-die, Intra-reticle, Intra-wafer, etc. • Including correlations (local, global) • (B) Incorporate a smart Monte Carlo approach • Based on performance sensitivity to sources of uncertainty • (C) Build generic critical path models • Delay-constrained vs. power-constrained • + Ring-oscillator, clock tree, etc. models

  17. “Mapping Design to Value”: (1) Across-Wafer Frequency Variation

  18. “Mapping Design to Value”: (1) Across-Wafer Frequency Variation

  19. “Mapping Design to Value”: (2) Can we combine (1) and (2) to drive design optimizations?

  20. “Mapping Design to Value”: (2) Can we combine (1) and (2) to drive design optimizations?

  21. Research Timeline • Year 1: Assess cost vs. variability tradeoffs, develop cost models for RETs • Year 2: Develop layout methods and tools for cost-driven insertion of RETs while meeting performance goals • Year 3: Model calibration/verification using test structures, circuit layout approaches to account for RET-based constraints

  22. SPARE SLIDES

  23. RET Resource Requirements Grobman, Motorola

  24. RET Roadmap 0.25 um 0.18 um 0.13 um 0.10 um 0.07 um Rule-based OPC Model-based OPC Scattering Bars AA-PSM Weak PSM Rule-based Tiling Optimization-driven MB Tiling Litho CMP Number Of Affected Layers Increases / Generation 248 nm 248/193 nm 193 nm W. Grobman, Motorola – DAC-2001

  25. Mask Data and the $1M Mask NRE • Too many data formats • Most tools have unique data format • Raster to variable shaped-beam conversion is inefficient • Real-time manufacturing tool switch, multiple qualified tools  duplicate fractures to avoid delays if tool switch required • Data volume • OPC increases figure count acceleration • MEBES format is flat • ALTA machines (mask writers) slow down with > 1GB data • Data volume strains distributed manufacturing resources • Refracturing mask data • Before: mask industry never touched mask data (risky, no good reason) • Today: 90% of mask data files manipulated or refractured: process bias sizing (iso-dense, loading effects, linearity, …), mask write optimization, multiple tool formats, …

  26. Process Variation Sources • Design  (manufacturing variability)  Value • Intrinsic variations • Systematic: due to predictable sources, can be compensated during design stage • Random: inherently unpredictable fluctuations and cannot be compensated • Dynamic variations • Stem from circuit operation, including supply voltage and temperature fluctuations • Depend on circuit activity and hard to be compensated • Correlations • Tox and Vth0 are correlated due to • Line width and spacing are anti-correlated by one; ILD and interconnect thickness also anti-correlated

  27. Lens Towards Lens Wafer Plane Edge: High Aberrations Center: Minimal Aberrations Many Variability Sources… • Example: Field-dependent aberrations cause placement errors and distortions R. Pack, Cadence

More Related